Who Broke the #OpenWeb?

30 years ago, the #openweb held the promise of a decentralized, people-driven internet where communities thrived free from corporate control, built on openness, collaboration, and trust. However, over time, #mainstreaming overlapping forces contributed to its fragmentation and decay. I will outline each of these groups that played a role in hollowing out the one’s strong native path. Till ten years ago, we just had a shell of its former self.

A brief look at who undermined the #openweb:

#Encryptionists – Security Theatre Over Trust-Based Relationships

Security and privacy are crucial aspects of online interactions. However, the rise of encryption absolutism led to a fixation on security theatre rather than meaningful, trust-based relationships. By prioritizing complex, user-unfriendly security measures, #encryptionists alienated non-technical users. They created barriers to entry, making the #openweb feel inaccessible to the very people it aimed to empower. Trust, once a fundamental building block of the openweb, was sidelined in favour of rigid, abstract security morality that ignored real-world social dynamics. While encryption is necessary, it should complement usability rather than hinder this “native” path. When security becomes a gatekeeper rather than an enabler, it fractures communities rather than strengthening them.

#Geekproblem – The #openweb as an irrelevant subculture

Technologists and early adopters built the openweb, but over time, the culture of fear based geek elitism turned the flow into a closed-off subculture. Developers built tools for themselves rather than for broader communities, leading to solutions that required extensive technical knowledge to use. The obsession with purity in code and ideology hidden within this path created unnecessary division and infighting. Rather than embracing the diverse needs of the public, the #geekproblem pushed people away, reinforcing a bubble that only a self select few could engage with. Instead of evolving into an inclusive, mass-adopted movement, the openweb became a niche playground for those already initiated in its ways, leaving the rest to the mercy of corporate-controlled #dotcons.

#Fashernistas – Self-interest, greed, and the worst of both worlds

The rise of wannabe internet influencers, thought leaders, and opportunists, what we call the #fashernistas, has further eroded the openweb. Many latched onto the latest trends not out of any genuine belief or understanding, but for self-promotion and status. They borrowed aspects of both corporate and grassroots cultures, cherry-picking whatever served their individual interests while ignoring the larger ethical paths and responsibilities. Their influence diluted the radical ideas, turning this space into shallow branding exercises rather than growing the meaning filled movements. Instead of acting as advocates for real change and thus challenge, they became part of the problem, steering discussions toward popularity contests rather than the substance we need.

#Dotcons – The corporate takeover of data and social control

The most obvious and destructive force has been the rise of corporate social media (#dotcons), which privatized data and metadata for profit and control. The internet was transformed from an open space into a series of walled gardens controlled by tech giants. Monetization models based on surveillance and algorithmic manipulation reshaped online behaviour, pushing engagement metrics over any real or genuine human connection. By making convenience their selling point, they successfully pulled people away from the increasingly #geekproblem decentralized, community-led paths and platforms. The result? A generation that has become dependent on centralized services while completely losing control over their digital lives.

The destruction of the openweb was not inevitable, and it does not have to be permanent. A lot of people and communities are already back on this “native” path with the #Fediverse. How we actively help to work to reclaim this openweb reboot:

Reclaim Trust-Based Relationships – Instead of hiding behind abstract security models, we need to balance this with rebuilding relationships based on trust and transparency. This means developing tools that prioritize human connection over cryptographic isolation.

Stop Chasing Security Theatre at the Cost of Usability – Security should serve people, not alienate them. We need simple, effective solutions that balance safety with accessibility.

Challenge Commercialization and Centralization – Corporate control of the web needs to be actively resisted. Open, federated, and cooperative models should be the foundation of our digital spaces, this is a fight we can win.

Build Resilient, People-Powered Infrastructure – We need investment in decentralized, community-driven technologies that are not reliant on any single entity. By growing the culture of home-hosting, redundancy, and peer-to-peer networks, we can create systems that can survive and thrive outside corporate control and be a little resilient to social brake down we are going to face over the next 20 years.

In conclusion, the openweb was torn apart by a combination of #deathcult ideological rigidity, cultural elitism, opportunism, and corporate greed. But the is hope, as we are currently rebuilding this path, the question now is: Will we let the forces that destroyed the original openweb movement shape these fresh seedling beds, or will we take back control to grow something better and stronger.

People, community, the long struggle between the #openweb and #dotcons

This is a mess that has been clear to see for 20 years, but people keep falling into the same traps instead of stepping off the cycle of control. We had something, we lost it, and we are still refusing to face why.

Let’s use #Failbook as a practical example of a monster that devours our dreams, fifteen years ago, the writing was already on the wall, #failbook and the #dotcons would eat everything. It wasn’t some grand conspiracy, just basic power and control dynamics. People knew this. They saw the cage being built around them, yet walked in willingly. Why? Because in the small picture, it was “easier” to stay inside than to step outside. They thought they were users, but they were being used. Every attempt to “fix” #failbook, the endless ethical tech debates, the “kinder, fairer” alternatives, the #NGO-funded projects promising “a better social network”, misses the core issue: You don’t fix a monster. You stop feeding it and walk away.

This is where the religious metaphor fits, people don’t want atheism (the #openweb), they just want a nicer god (ethical #dotcons). They still kneel before centralized power, just hoping for a softer whip. We need to stop worshipping the digital feudal lords and start building something else entirely. One path is to reboot the original #openweb

To do this we need some social history: The #openweb was murdered, and no one faced the consequences, we need a truth and reconciliation process for what happened to the #openweb. Why? Because people refuse to learn from history, and that means they keep making the same mistakes. Look at the waves of migration from open to closed over the last two decades:

The rise of blogs and open publishing (2000s) → The pull into social media walled gardens (2010s)
The rise of the federated web (2000s, early 2010s) → The collapse into corporate-owned silos (late 2010s, 2020s)
The rebirth of the Fediverse (Mastodon, PeerTube, Lemmy, etc.) → Now being co-opted by NGOs and #mainstreaming interests

Each time, the excuse is different, but the result is the same, we hand over power, they take control, we lose everything. Until we face the fact that we let this happen, that we were complicit, this cycle won’t stop. Every time we fail to call it what it is, the blood-letting/stains keep coming back.

The problem with #NGO and Co-op models, people love to push the same “solutions” that failed before. Pushing a voluntary project into a hard “not-for-profit” structure kills it, this happened again and again. Look at #indymedia. It worked because it was messy, decentralized, built from the ground up. Run by volunteers, not controlled by a central authority. Rooted in the activist base, not an #NGO-funded agenda. Then came the push to “formalize” it, and what happened?

Funding fights, bureaucracy, infighting.
Projects being hijacked or forced into rigid structures.
Most of the co-op/NGO media projects collapsed.

There is nothing wrong with people building not-for-profit media, but stop forcing voluntary activism into structures that will kill it. The old mistakes aren’t new solutions. They are just mistakes waiting to happen again.

The #OMN and the need for diversity of strategies, the #OMN is built on a simple idea, diversity of strategies is strength. We need:

Commercial models where they work.
Not-for-profit structures where they make sense.
Voluntary activism as the foundation.

Then the basic #4opens of them linking to each other. What we don’t need is people using their own narrow worldview as a #BLOCK on other approaches in the guise of “helping”. This happens all the time, with the #NGO crowd that wants everything formalized, structured, and professionalized, they see grassroots messiness as a problem. The geeks want everything to be purely about the tech, ignoring the social and political realities. The politicos want everything to align with their ideology, even when that means excluding actual working solutions. These proxy fights kill the meany projects before they even start.

The solution is not ideological purity, it’s pragmatic diversity. If we want to break the cycle, we need to stop repeating the same mistakes, stop blocking each other, link and start building with what we have #KISS

One path to this, that needs support https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The light in this is the #Fediverse, otherwise the last decade in tech has been a complete dead end. We’ve watched the same old mistakes play out, layering more “solutions” onto the #geekproblem without ever questioning the foundation. Instead of building trust, we’ve been sold “security” wrapped in fear, reinforcing the same toxic cycles that keep us locked in place.

The #OMN projects build from the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot to break from this. They are about real empowerment, shifting power by growing trust rather than control. If we keep repeating the same mistakes, we’re just feeding the #deathcult, accelerating the collapse. The #fashernista and #encryptionist obsessions, instead of opening paths to change, have become blind alleyways leading to catastrophe. We need to step back, reassess, and build differently, before the coming decades bring suffering on a scale we’ve barely begun to grasp.

The Fediverse is a step

Let’s do a brief breakdown of the core structural problems of centralized platforms and how they warp social interaction. This ties directly into the #geekproblem, #4opens, and the broader issues of #dotcons and digital feudalism. Key issues:

Centralization breeds #feudalism. One big virtual server means a few people have all the power while the rest are serfs.
“Ease of use” is often a lie. It just means the real costs are hidden, either pushed onto users (moderation, unpaid labour) or externalized (data exploitation, environmental costs).
Advertising poisons everything. It’s a moral hazard because platforms optimize for ad revenue, not people’s or community well-being, leading to manipulation and surveillance.
Moderation cannot be outsourced. Centralized platforms fail at moderation because they have to apply feudal control instead of organic, community-led governance.
As it’s used now, the algorithm is not your friend. It reinforces biases, kills discovery, and turns users into dopamine addicts, making them less able to engage meaningfully.
Buying influence kills real communities. When orgs and brands dominate a space, the authentic social fabric collapses.

The #openweb Alternative? The #4opens and #OMN offer a radically different path, where trust replaces control, decentralized, transparent networks let communities govern themselves. Organic discovery beats algorithms, instead of being trapped in echo chambers, people explore through human curation and paths.

The Fediverse is a step, but it’s still struggling with #geekproblem governance issues. The real challenge is breaking out of the social #postmodernist loop and building solid, trust-based, grassroots media and social spaces to shape the change challenge we need.

The #dotcons #mainstreaming internet is designed to pacify and extract, we need to build for resistance and renewal #KISS path is native #openweb

Security is a social problem first, a tech problem second

The #geekproblem locks us into hardcoded #feudalism, power structures baked into the code itself, with server admins as kings, users as serfs. To break this, we need to build trust-based paths first and let security emerge from that, rather than bolting it on after the fact.
What actually needs to be secured?

The account → If the instance isn’t secure, the account isn’t either.
The activity feed → The flows need to be secured to prevent manipulation.
The credit (data attribution) → Maybe hashing media objects?

But rather than obsessing over client-server security, we accept that trust must be social, not just cryptographic. #4opens keeps security honest, openness exposes flaws so they can be fixed.

The #encryptionists problem, is that they act like encryption is the solution to everything, but in reality, most people’s security is already broken at the device level, old phones, proprietary blobs, built by #dotcons. If you encrypt your messages, but the recipient’s device is compromised, what’s the point?

Open vs Closed

Closed breeds monsters—plots happen in the dark, and truth is impossible to judge.
Open exposes monsters—they might still exist, but they can be tripped up and countered.

The #Fediverse, #OMN, and #openweb need messy, trust-based networks, not fantasies of absolute control. Security isn’t about paranoia, it’s about transparency. The takeaway, we can’t solve security in a world where most people’s devices and networks are already compromised. Instead of a head-in-the-sand approach, we embrace the mess, trust the process, and build open systems that expose threats instead of pretending to eliminate them #KISS

Yes, it’s a feedback loop, geeks build the infrastructure of our digital world, but their worldview is trapped inside that same infrastructure. The #geekproblem is the inability to step outside their own frame of reference, even when the failures of their approach are pointed out hundreds of times over a decade.

They think in technical solutions to social problems, and because those solutions look logical to them, they assume the problem is fixed, even when it clearly isn’t. Worse, they don’t understand why people reject their fixes, so they blame the users, not their own blind spots.

What does the #geekproblem do?

It pushes crossover left/right tech governance that lacks any grounding in real-world politics or social movements.
It gets stuck in endless debates where nothing ever changes, because geeks can’t see what’s outside their own mental models.
It defaults to #postmodernism, where everything is relative, nothing is real, and any attempt to define truth is dismissed as controlling “them”.
It refuses to accept accountability because the tools they build don’t support it.

Example of the #geekproblem? We have already pointed to #indymedia, where geek-led decisions undermined the very social movements the tech was supposed to support. And we see it today in Fediverse governance, where geeks cling to process without understanding power.

The #4opens exposes these problems, but geeks still can’t see them. Why? Because openness forces social accountability, and geek culture resists that. The way forward? We need diverse voices in digital spaces, not just geek monocultures. The Fediverse, #OMN, and other #openweb projects need balance, geeks build the tools, but they shouldn’t be the ones defining the social governance of those tools.

So yeah, go round in circles with geeks all you want, but until they acknowledge there’s a problem, nothing changes. Instead of fighting them, we should be building outside their bubble, bringing in people who have some understanding of social processes, and making the #geekproblem a public discussion.

Because if they won’t see the problem, we’ll just have to work around them somehow, ideas please?

A path we need for the #openweb

The #NGO crew can be poison, not because they’re bad people, but because of how social structures and agendas shape behaviour. For the social health of the #openweb, we need to be mindful of what we take in. Just like in nature, some things are toxic in large doses. “Nice” doesn’t always mean “good.” There’s no contradiction here.

“Don’t drink from the #mainstreaming.”

But remember, shit makes good compost! Instead of just being cynical, let’s grow something better from this mess. A healthy #openweb world is still possible.

The Real Problem, is that too many people have been stuck in the #dotcons feedback loop for too long, lazy consumption feeding corporate control, which in turn dulls critical thinking, making people even more dependent. The illusion of #mainstreaming “ethical” alternatives all reinforce this cycle.

This post isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, but if you feel called out… well, maybe think about why.

Q: Why does this matter?

Because right now, #fashernistas (trend-chasers) and their projects are flooding into the #openweb space. Some of these projects are good, but many are just recreating the #geekproblem, building things that look different on the surface but are more #techshit repeating the same mistakes.

We use the #4opens as a litmus test for these projects:

Open Data – Who controls it?
Open Source – Can it be independently verified and improved?
Open Process – Who gets to decide?
Open Standards – Can it be freely networked and flows built upon?

If we don’t actively promote and support real alternatives, people will just step to more of the next “ethically marketed” #dotcons. If we don’t do #PR, they will, and they have far bigger budgets.

Q: What’s the deal with #hashtags, they empower people to break out of controlled algorithms.

Click a hashtag → See real conversations outside your curated bubble.
Follow a hashtag → Keep up with a movement, not just what a platform wants you to see.
Use hashtags → Help build DIY, horizontal networks that weaken centralized control.

Example: Try clicking on #boatingeurope

Simple truth: Hashtags can be used to give you more power, and take power away from the algorithmic walls of the #geekproblem and #dotcons. They help connect ideas, people, and actions outside #mainstreaming corporate control.

Not using them? That’s fine, but why actively reject something that makes change easier? Social transformation isn’t painless, but it’s doable. A simple first step is to just start using shared social hashtags, and when you get pushback, stick with it.

Nobody said social change was easy.

The #mainstreaming progressive are finally moving to what I have been saying in the hashtag story. They are talking about the #blocking of left paths by our #fashionisters, we do need to work at shovelling this mess to grow the seeds we need for change and challenge.

There are piles of shit from this mess.

Open vs Closed Security: Finding a Path

In a world where digital activism is all surveilled, we need to understand better the balance between open and closed security. If you’re doing anything politically sensitive or “#spiky,” the safest option is to organize offline. Government analysts, corporate spies, and bad actors easily map connections inside the #dotcons and gather intel through the #openweb.

The challenge is that, while secure communication tools exist, relying on them requires an almost impossible level of tech literacy and trust. Maybe 0.001% of people can confidently lock down their systems, but the remaining 99.99% can’t, or won’t. And even for the most tech-savvy, there’s always the risk of compromised firmware, backdoors, or people error.

Historically, the danger isn’t just theoretical. Police spies have infiltrated activist circles for decades, as detailed in resources like Police Spies Out of Lives. Activists who relied on #closedsecurity were often devastated when trusted comrades turned out to be state agents, the real-world equivalent of someone copying and pasting your encrypted chat to their handlers. Worse still, for every state spy, there are likely ten corporate or private agency spies, each with their own motivations.

From a social point of view the #geekproblem path to perfect privacy is an illusion. So where does that leave us? The truth is, there’s no hard tech fix to human social networking. Tools can help, but social solutions are much more vital. If you are on the #fluffy path or only on the edge of #spiky, working openly and embracing the #4opens model can mitigate harm by removing secrecy as a vulnerability. If there are few secrets to steal, spies lose much of their power.

At the same time, digital skills are essential. People, especially current generations, are organizing online, and the line between online and offline is non-existent to them. Telling them to “just organize offline” will likely get you a dismissive “OK boomer” in response. But just with the police spy history, there will be a cost to people who dismiss this history, we do need to understand better both the possibilities and the risks.

The goal, then, isn’t to choose between open or closed security, but to build a hybrid path. Use the #openweb to find each other and share public information. Use secure tools for truly private discussions, but with the awareness that no tool is socially foolproof. And most importantly, build strong social bonds and resilient offline communities, because, in the end, trust is the only real valuable security layer we have.

Let’s embrace the mess, recognize the dangers, and navigate this landscape with care.

#openweb #4opens #security #privacy #activism #digitalresilience

The #fashernistas poisoned the well of alt-media

This has been going on for more than ten years, I have been at the heart of this movement, at many of the steps, I meet defeatism and negativity. It’s frustrating, especially now, when the mainstream is visibly stepping away from the #dotcons and looking for a place to land. We should be building that landing space, but instead, we’re tangled in the wreckage of failed ideas and cynical inertia.

Yes, stupid fashionable ideas have failed again and again, but that doesn’t mean the basics no longer work. The #openweb grew from simple, powerful principles: decentralization, collaboration, and a belief that media should be in the hands of the people, not locked behind corporate walls. It worked then, and it can work now.

The #blocking wall, the #dotcons built to dam this flow, just might be crumbling, but I don’t think people realize just how much defeatist noise we had and still have to break through:

“Old tech. Nobody uses torrents anymore.”
“That’s been tried — it failed.”
“This is better, nobody’s interested in that.”
“You should be using XYZ instead. I have a better idea...”

It’s an endless cycle of negativity, driven by a #geekproblem that values novelty over function, and a #fashernista culture that chases trends rather than tending to the messy, necessary work of composting old ideas to grow something real. The #openweb tools still work, If we use them. The core tools of the #openweb are still powerful:

#RSS feeds for simple, open distribution.
#Torrents for decentralized, resilient file sharing.
#Fedivers networks like #Peertube, #Mastodon, and #Wordpress for publishing and connection.
Mesh networks and local-first tech to break dependence on centralized infrastructure.

None of these are new, that’s the point, they work. The failure wasn’t in the tech, it was in our inability to hold space against the relentless creep of the #deathcult. Reclaiming the compost heap is a first step, we need to stop chasing the next shiny thing and start digging through the muck. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #4opens are all rooted in the idea that we can rebuild from what we already know works, not by reinventing the wheel but by getting our hands dirty and composting the failures into fertile ground for the future.

The defeatism is loud, but it’s not unbeatable. We’ve been here before. We know the way out.

Decentralize.
Publish.
Connect.
Trust the process.

We (re)build the #openweb one small, stubborn step at a time.

Deep breath. Take a step.

Clearly marking the difference between the #openweb and #closedweb

The last decade has seen a rapid shift toward #mainstreaming, where the boundaries between #open and #closed have been intentionally blurred, is also mirrored in our alt paths. This #geekproblem confusion serves the interests of the #dotcons and the #deathcult, not the people. The language of the #hashtagstory sharpens this divide and give people the tools to see the reality of the paths they’re walking and engaging with.

The #openweb, is built on the principles of the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. It centres human-to-human connections, growing at best community, collaboration, and collective empowerment. By prioritizes social trust, transparency, and grassroots governance. And thrives in messy, organic, and decentralized environments.

The #closedweb is dominated by control. It is pushed by both the #dotcons and their shadow puppets, the #encryptionists, who sell privacy as a product while reinforcing isolation and distrust. Encourages #stupidindividualism and consumerism over community and collective action. Markets itself as progressive but reinforces the same centralized power structures.

Why marking the difference matters, when we blur the lines, we lose sight of the path we need to walk. People unknowingly feed the systems that oppress them, believing they are supporting alternatives. By #KISS labelling projects, platforms, and ideas as either #openweb or #closedweb, we create dialogue to empower people to make informed choices and shift their energy toward real change.

The #4opens acts as the shovel to dig through the #techshit, turning failed projects and false promises into compost for the next wave of more truly open technology. Please start using these #hashtags intentionally. Call things what they are. If a project claims to be open but hides its development, call it #closedweb. If a platform fosters community and embraces messy, social processes, celebrate it as part of the #openweb.

Change is happening. The centre isn’t holding, the choice is left or right. The #openweb is the radical, collective path in this choice.

Let’s start naming the terrain to compost and grow.

What matters and what is dangerous

The influx of #mainstreaming brings many different, often non-native, focuses into our spaces. Most of these will be better handled as external resources. Let’s keep the core simple: #KISS and #4opens. Money is a dangerous subject for #openweb projects. It’s the root of corruption and co-option, so it’s best to keep financial aspects as external applications and simply link to them. Words are wind, look at the ground. We live in a closed world, and we should not add to this mess.

There is no security in CLOSED systems — security comes from OPEN and social processes.
There is no security in individualism — true security lies in community.
There is no security in “trustless” models — real security emerges from social trust.

Over the last 10 years, we’ve been fed meany lies. This is especially clear in tech. Look at #opensource: can you find any lasting value in CLOSED within that? Over the last 20 years, we’ve seen an ongoing battle between OPEN and CLOSED, but the last decade has been dominated by the #dotcons and their shadow puppet, the #encryptionists. Both are CLOSED, both wear the cloth of OPEN, and both recite the right words. But words are wind — look at the ground. #4opens is the reality check.

I’ll be truly optimistic when closed paths of #encryptionist apps cross standards with the #open of #activertypub apps, bridging the human nature and “feeling” that fuels this gap. But right now, there’s a strong, unspoken push not to address these issues.

Nearly everything I do today revolves around #4opens, addressing the unspoken issues head-on. I’ve been doing this full-time for more than 30 years, and I’ve watched hundreds of alt-tech projects wither on the vine, with only a handful of flowering. Reflecting on this, I’ve developed a #KISS universally reliable way of judging which projects might flourish and which will collapse: the #4opens framework. Others might call it open-source development or radical transparency, but it’s all the same core path #nothingnew

To move this forward, we need to address the core problems:

The #geekproblem — a teenage mix of arrogance and ignorance that spreads like wildfire.

The #dotcons — a relentless push of greed over human need.

These are fundamental issues, and it’s good, necessary, to have strong opinions on them. Because not having an opinion? That’s a path straight back to the #deathcult. We don’t need more of that. What we need is compost, patience, and the courage to keep pushing for openness and social solidarity, no matter how messy it gets.

Let’s grow something real.

There’s an unspoken #geekproblem lurking at the heart of the #openweb, and it’s past time we bring it into the light. If we frame #p2p as #human2human, scaling becomes a virtue, an organic process of communities growing, evolving, and finding balance through social trust. But if we view #p2p as #data2data, scaling becomes a purely technical challenge, one that strips the human element away.

The first path embraces the messy beauty of human connections. Scaling isn’t a failure, it’s a reminder that growth needs care, cooperation, and thoughtful design. The second path, the data-centric approach, treats humans as nodes, reducing complex social interactions to packets of information to optimize and control.

Here’s the issue: the latter view is the one pushed by the #dotcons. The systems we’ve grown up with, the platforms we’ve relied on, all reinforce this anti-human perspective. And whether we like it or not, we’ve internalized some of this thinking, even within our #openweb projects. That’s the uncomfortable truth.

The question is: do we actually want to solve this? Because the solution isn’t technical, it’s social. It means rejecting the idea that tech should replace or dominate human processes. It means making space for friction, for inefficiency, for the unpredictability of people working together.

Talk to a geek today. Start the conversation. Ask how they see #p2p — as people connecting, or as machines exchanging data? Their answer might tell you a lot about where their compass is pointing, and whether we can navigate back toward a web that is human.

Let’s compost the #geekproblem, nourish the soil, and grow something better.

Food for thought today: Open is life. Closed is death

Are our geeks feeding the #deathcult? Twenty years ago, the #openweb was all about open. Our bowing down to the #dotcons has left everyone pushing for closed. For death.

We need to make some compost, this path in technology is social, rooted in the recognition that technology, at its core, is a tool created and used by humans to address social needs and challenges. While technological advancements on this path can bring about benefits and progress, they also have the capacity to perpetuate existing inequalities, exacerbate social divides, and undermine democratic paths.

To decide on what is compostable, the #4opens framework provides a useful lens through which to evaluate and assess technology projects. By emphasizing openness, transparency, collaboration, and decentralization, the set of principles prioritize social utility and collective benefit over corporate profit and only individual gain.

For our #geekproblem we need to talk about why the social dimension of technology is crucial for empowerment. Technology has the power to empower people and communities by providing access to information, resources, and opportunities. By focusing on the social utility of technology, we ensure that it is designed and deployed in ways that promote inclusivity, participation, and empowerment.

Equity and Justice are needed for this balance, in a world pushing systemic inequalities, technology can either reinforce existing power structures or serve as a tool for challenging and transforming them. By centreing social considerations in tech development, we work towards more equitable paths.

Community building using technology has the power to foster connections, collaboration, and community-building on a global scale. By using social utility, we harness the power of technology to strengthen social bonds, dialogue, and mobilize collective action around shared #KISS goals and values. In summary, the social dimension of technology determines how technology is designed, deployed, and used for social needs and challenges.

Let’s stop feeding the #deathcult. We need compost to grow something better, please.

#Fashionistas in Activism: How Buzzword Chasing Undermines Real Change

In activism, the term “#fashionistas” captures individuals and groups, especially within #NGOs and advocacy organizations, who latch onto trendy causes or ideologies, not out of deep commitment, but to appear relevant or to align with the latest social currents. This is corrosive to meaningful change, reducing activism to performative gestures rather than a sustained struggle for justice.

Superficial engagement when they rush to adopt the language of trending movements (like #BLM, #MeToo, or #ClimateJustice) without committing to their radical roots. For example, after George Floyd’s murder, many corporations and NGOs posted black squares on #Instaspam as a symbolic gesture. But what followed? Few made concrete policy changes or redistributed resources to Black-led grassroots organizations. It was activism as aesthetics, empty gestures rather than systemic action that was called for.

Lack of authenticity when organizations prioritize optics over substance, which breed distrust. Consider the influx of NGOs claiming to champion digital rights but quietly partnering with Big Tech for funding. The grassroots developers working on genuinely decentralized platforms are left unsupported, while the NGO pointless/parasite class absorbs attention and resources, all while reinforcing the #deathcult paths they claim to oppose.

Mainstreaming, activism loses its teeth when it’s tailored for palatability. Take the way climate #NGOs soften their language to avoid alienating corporate funders, pushing “net zero” narratives instead of demanding degrowth or direct action. By sanitizing radical demands, they reinforce the status quo rather than confronting the power structures driving #climatechaos.

Misaligned priorities, chasing trends, means resources get funnelled away from sustained struggles. For example, the fleeting attention on #Palestine waxes and wanes with media cycles, while groups doing year-round solidarity work scrape by with minimal support. #Fashionistas flock to hashtags when they’re hot, then move on, abandoning communities who still face oppression once the spotlight fades.

Reactive rather than proactive when #fashionistas are caught chasing the next big thing rather than strategizing long-term solutions. Think of the explosion of interest in #openweb media during political unrest, a real issue, yes, but one that reveals the broader failure to build #4opens, community-run digital infrastructure proactively. The #OMN project exists precisely to address this, but it’s hard to gain traction when attention constantly flits to the crisis of the moment.

Rectonery, the most toxic aspect of fashionista activism is its tendency to reinforce the very systems it claims to oppose. When #NGOs adopt radical language but stay within #mainstreaming paradigms, they create an illusion of progress. For instance, diversity initiatives in tech are often superficial, leading to token hires rather than dismantling structural racism or addressing the #geekproblem that keeps tech culture hostile to outsiders.

How do we compost the #fashionistas mess? The answer lies in prioritizing authenticity, long-term commitment, and meaningful engagement. This means, centring grassroots voices by funding and amplify people working on the ground, not just polished, and mostly pointless #NGO campaigns.

Rejecting mainstreaming, by be willing to alienate power to keep to radical paths. This needs us to building infrastructure, like #OMN and #indymediaback to create autonomous spaces outside corporate control. Historical awareness, it matters to remember our past struggles, rights and freedoms were won by collective action, not #PR campaigns.

What, we don’t need, is more buzzword-chasing #nonprofits. We need shovels, compost, and a commitment to grow something real from the ruins of the #deathcult. It’s not glamorous, but it’s the only path to lasting change. Let’s start digging.

#4opens #activism #openweb #OMN #techshit #nastyfew

The best revenge against the #nastyfew is simple: don’t talk about them at all.

What fuels them is attention — the endless cycle of fixating on their every move. Unless it’s absolutely necessary, keep the focus on the ideas and the collective struggles, not the individuals causing the mess.

Talk about the systems, the structures, the republicans, not the disruptive few seeking to derail the conversation.

Ignoring the #nastyfew is the most powerful revenge you can take. Stay grounded, stay collective, and keep it #KISS.

Composting mess making, activism and #openweb

Most people I interact with are buried deep in the rot they’ve helped create, the path out is hard, but not impossible. The composting metaphor holds — rot can become soil, but only if it’s turned, exposed to air, and given time to break down. The stench lingers, though, and the deeper the decay, the harder it is to face.

Forgiveness can be a catalyst, but only if it’s rooted in understanding, not avoidance. Too often, movements try to “move on” without actually dealing with the decay, which just locks the dysfunction into place. Real forgiveness isn’t about forgetting or excusing — it’s about acknowledging the harm, holding people accountable to growth, and making space for them to rebuild trust through action.

With the #OMN the key is to create intentional processes for airing out the rot. Spaces where people can lay out what went wrong, where the worst of the mess can be named and examined without immediately collapsing into blame. This is a form of collective composting — deliberately breaking things down so they don’t keep contaminating the roots of future growth.

For paths that avoid recreating the mess, we might need, truth-telling circles: Spaces for people to name harms, acknowledge mistakes, and speak honestly about the dynamics that led to failure. Restorative action, not just words: Forgiveness should be paired with tangible action — people need ways to rebuild trust through collective work. Memory gardens: Digital or physical archives that document past failures and successes, so the same mistakes don’t get repeated.
Rhythmic cycles of reflection: Movements need to regularly pause, look back, and compost what’s no longer serving the collective purpose.

Sun, light, and fertile soil come from this messy work of turning over the past and allowing time and care to transform it. The #openweb is a part of this, especially if we build systems and paths that prioritize collective memory and iterative growth over constant reinvention and erasure.

What do you think? Could structured cycles of composting and reflection help our movements breathe again? Or is the rot too deep, and we need to burn things down to clear space for new life?

The #Fluffy #Spiky Debate.

Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these “solutions” are supposed to be addressing.

The Pragmatists, prioritizes immediate, tangible solutions. For example, when discussing the digital divide, they might advocate for creating cheaper, more accessible devices or building community Wi-Fi networks. They’ll focus on the logistics: what technology stack is best, what protocols to use, and how quickly the network can be deployed.

They see critiques of the capitalist underpinnings of tech as a distraction. For instance, they might argue that worrying about Big Tech’s dominance is less important than simply getting people online, even if it means relying on Google or Facebook infrastructure in the short term. The goal is to solve the immediate problem, even if the long-term implications reinforce existing systems of control.

The Social Critics, contends that technology cannot be meaningfully separated from the social systems it emerges from. They argue that simply handing out cheap devices or relying on corporate infrastructure entrenches dependency and undermines community sovereignty. For example, they might point to the rise of open-source projects that eventually get swallowed by venture capital, losing their grassroots values in the process (#dotcons).

They argue that unless we address the systemic issues, like how profit-driven models shape the design of platforms, any immediate “solution” is likely to reinforce the problem. Take social media moderation: a pragmatist might suggest better algorithms, while a social critic would argue that the underlying problem is the ad-driven engagement path itself.

The #GeekProblem is a barrier, the divide between these groups often solidifies into this mess making. Pragmatists, especially in tech spaces, dismiss social critique as impractical or irrelevant, reinforcing an insular culture that privileges technical expertise over lived experience. This dismissal is a form of #blocking, preventing collective growth and deeper problem-solving.

Breaking the cycle, to move past this, we need to blend the perspectives. For example, community mesh networks can be built with both pragmatic goals (connecting people) and social considerations (using #4opens practices to maintain local control). The technology itself can be a tool for social empowerment, but only if the builders acknowledge and address the social dimensions.

Projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) bridge this gap, grounding tech development in community needs while keeping processes transparent and participatory. This balance helps compost the mess, turning the tension between pragmatism and social critique into fertile ground for true change. We don’t have to choose between immediate action and long-term systemic change, the key is holding both. Let’s stop getting stuck in the mess and start growing something real.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network